Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT

37 ITR 271Supreme Court of India1959#112 most cited

What is Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT authority for?

An income tax assessment or addition cannot be sustained solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises, or conjectures, as strong suspicion does not amount to proof. The revenue authorities must rely on concrete evidence and material to frame an assessment.

567

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT · suspicion not proof · no addition on surmises · conjectures and suspicion · burden of proof income tax · Section 68 cash credits · Section 132(4) statement · assessment without evidence · Section 37(1) business expenditure · genuineness of transaction

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 68Section 148Section 153ASection 69C

Issues it is cited on

price riggingdumb documentssection 132(4a)statement under section 132(4)bogus long term capital gainsection 292cretracted statementloose paperson-moneybogus ltcgsection 132(4)penny stock

Judgments citing Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT

Vijay Radheshyam Nyati HUF, Dhar vs. ITO, Dhar

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

ITA 704/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133A

…d in the eyes of law as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151). The suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). Therefore, we find that onus as caster upon revenue to corroborate the impugned additions by controverting the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee and by bringing on record, any cogent material to sustain those additions, could not be discharged by the revenue. The allegation of price rigging / manipulation has been levied without es…

Smt Vijaya Nyati, Dhar vs. ITO, Dhar

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

ITA 703/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133A

…d in the eyes of law as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151). The suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). Therefore, we find that onus as caster upon revenue to corroborate the impugned additions by controverting the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee and by bringing on record, any cogent material to sustain those additions, could not be discharged by the revenue. The allegation of price rigging / manipulation has been levied without es…

Shri Mohan Thakur, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Cent. Cir. 8(4), Mumbai

ITA 1437/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2013-14
Section 69

…re tax authorities. Therefore, in absence of any evidence, addition made merely on the basis of presumption and assumption cannot be sustained Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon"ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC)[15.O5.1959] page 305-310 of PB III (last para at page 309) wherein it was held that there was no material on which the Income-tax Officer could come to the conclusion that the firm was not genuine. There are many surmises and conjectures, and the conclusion is the result of suspicion which cannot take the place of proof in these matters. Add…

Shri Mohan Thakur, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Cent. Cir. 8(4), Mumbai

ITA 1436/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2012-13
Section 69

…re tax authorities. Therefore, in absence of any evidence, addition made merely on the basis of presumption and assumption cannot be sustained Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon"ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC)[15.O5.1959] page 305-310 of PB III (last para at page 309) wherein it was held that there was no material on which the Income-tax Officer could come to the conclusion that the firm was not genuine. There are many surmises and conjectures, and the conclusion is the result of suspicion which cannot take the place of proof in these matters. Add…

Shri Mohan Thakur, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Cent. Cir. 8(4), Mumbai

ITA 1435/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2011-12
Section 69

…re tax authorities. Therefore, in absence of any evidence, addition made merely on the basis of presumption and assumption cannot be sustained Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon"ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC)[15.O5.1959] page 305-310 of PB III (last para at page 309) wherein it was held that there was no material on which the Income-tax Officer could come to the conclusion that the firm was not genuine. There are many surmises and conjectures, and the conclusion is the result of suspicion which cannot take the place of proof in these matters. Add…

Shri Mohan Thakur, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Cent. Cir. 8(4), Mumbai

ITA 1434/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2009-10
Section 69

…re tax authorities. Therefore, in absence of any evidence, addition made merely on the basis of presumption and assumption cannot be sustained Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon"ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC)[15.O5.1959] page 305-310 of PB III (last para at page 309) wherein it was held that there was no material on which the Income-tax Officer could come to the conclusion that the firm was not genuine. There are many surmises and conjectures, and the conclusion is the result of suspicion which cannot take the place of proof in these matters. Add…

Shri Nilesh Jain HUF, Indore vs. ITO 4(2), Indore

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

ITA 294/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…d in the eyes of law as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151). The suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). Therefore, we find that onus as caster upon revenue to corroborate the impugned additions by controverting the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee and by bringing on record, any cogent material to sustain those additions, could not be discharged by the revenue. The allegation of price rigging / manipulation has been levied without es…

Pritesh Jain HUF, Indore vs. ITO 4 (2), Indore

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

ITA 293/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…d in the eyes of law as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151). The suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). Therefore, we find that onus as caster upon revenue to corroborate the impugned additions by controverting the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee and by bringing on record, any cogent material to sustain those additions, could not be discharged by the revenue. The allegation of price rigging / manipulation has been levied without es…

Mr. Pramod Kumar Khandelwal, Agra vs. Dy.C.I.T.-1, Agra

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

ITA 201/AGR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 145Section 271(1)Section 44A

…17) 88 taxmann.com 660 (Hon’ble ITAT Jodhpur Bench) i) CIT Vs.Suresh Kumar Bajoria (2009) 34 SOT 29 (Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench `A”) j) Sammon Precision Mould Mfg.(India) Pvt.Ltd. Vs.ITO Ward 7(2) k) Umacharan Shaw & Bros. Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (1959) 37 ITR 271 (Hon'ble Supreme Court) l) Radhasoami Satsang Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (1992)193 ITR 321 (Hon’ble Supreme Court) The appellant’s counsel has urged that it is settled law that after rejection 12. of books of accounts U/S 145(3) of the Act the AO may make assessment U/S 144 of the Act and for the same the past history of the assessee is the b…

Mr. Pramod Kumar Khandelwal, Agra vs. Dy.C.I.T.-1, Agra

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

ITA 200/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 145Section 271(1)Section 44A

…17) 88 taxmann.com 660 (Hon’ble ITAT Jodhpur Bench) i) CIT Vs.Suresh Kumar Bajoria (2009) 34 SOT 29 (Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench `A”) j) Sammon Precision Mould Mfg.(India) Pvt.Ltd. Vs.ITO Ward 7(2) k) Umacharan Shaw & Bros. Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (1959) 37 ITR 271 (Hon'ble Supreme Court) l) Radhasoami Satsang Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (1992)193 ITR 321 (Hon’ble Supreme Court) The appellant’s counsel has urged that it is settled law that after rejection 12. of books of accounts U/S 145(3) of the Act the AO may make assessment U/S 144 of the Act and for the same the past history of the assessee is the b…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5516/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…sion of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151) wherein it was held that the suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). The additions made on mere presumptions could not be sustained and there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment as per the decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (26 ITR 775). The assessment should not be based merely on suspicion or 32 M/s Anil Agrawal (HUF) ITA Nos. 5512-5516/Mum/2…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5515/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…sion of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151) wherein it was held that the suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). The additions made on mere presumptions could not be sustained and there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment as per the decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (26 ITR 775). The assessment should not be based merely on suspicion or 32 M/s Anil Agrawal (HUF) ITA Nos. 5512-5516/Mum/2…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5514/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…sion of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151) wherein it was held that the suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). The additions made on mere presumptions could not be sustained and there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment as per the decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (26 ITR 775). The assessment should not be based merely on suspicion or 32 M/s Anil Agrawal (HUF) ITA Nos. 5512-5516/Mum/2…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5513/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…sion of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151) wherein it was held that the suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). The additions made on mere presumptions could not be sustained and there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment as per the decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (26 ITR 775). The assessment should not be based merely on suspicion or 32 M/s Anil Agrawal (HUF) ITA Nos. 5512-5516/Mum/2…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5512/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…sion of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151) wherein it was held that the suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). The additions made on mere presumptions could not be sustained and there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment as per the decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (26 ITR 775). The assessment should not be based merely on suspicion or 32 M/s Anil Agrawal (HUF) ITA Nos. 5512-5516/Mum/2…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(1), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. Sahakar Global Limited, Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 5341/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5125/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5126/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5127/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5128/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sahakar Global Ltd. Dcit-Cc-4(1) B-10, 1St Floor, Kanakia Space, Room No.1916,19Th Floor बिाम/ Western Edge Ii Air India Building Vs. W.E.Highway, Boriwali(East) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 066 Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-3575-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 5. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5340/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 6. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5968/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 7. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5341/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-Cc-4(1) Sahakar Global Ltd. Room No.1916,19Th Floor B-10, 1St Floor, Kanakia बिाम/ Air India Building Space, Western Edge Ii Vs. Nariman Point W.E.Highway, Boriwali(East) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 066 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-3575-R

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Leuva-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 68

…held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151) wherein it was held that the suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). In the above background, it could be seen that Ld. CIT(A) has trifurcated the investor entities into three categories- (i) entities not belonging to tainted group with respect of whom no incriminating material was found during search; (ii) entities belonging to tainted group where cash was exchanged in lieu of accommodation entries; (iii) entiti…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(1), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. Sahakar Global Limited, Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 5340/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5125/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5126/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5127/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5128/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sahakar Global Ltd. Dcit-Cc-4(1) B-10, 1St Floor, Kanakia Space, Room No.1916,19Th Floor बिाम/ Western Edge Ii Air India Building Vs. W.E.Highway, Boriwali(East) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 066 Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-3575-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 5. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5340/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 6. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5968/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 7. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5341/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-Cc-4(1) Sahakar Global Ltd. Room No.1916,19Th Floor B-10, 1St Floor, Kanakia बिाम/ Air India Building Space, Western Edge Ii Vs. Nariman Point W.E.Highway, Boriwali(East) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 066 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-3575-R

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Leuva-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 68

…held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151) wherein it was held that the suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). In the above background, it could be seen that Ld. CIT(A) has trifurcated the investor entities into three categories- (i) entities not belonging to tainted group with respect of whom no incriminating material was found during search; (ii) entities belonging to tainted group where cash was exchanged in lieu of accommodation entries; (iii) entiti…

Sahakar Global Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 5128/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5125/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5126/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5127/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5128/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sahakar Global Ltd. Dcit-Cc-4(1) B-10, 1St Floor, Kanakia Space, Room No.1916,19Th Floor बिाम/ Western Edge Ii Air India Building Vs. W.E.Highway, Boriwali(East) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 066 Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-3575-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 5. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5340/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 6. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5968/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 7. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5341/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-Cc-4(1) Sahakar Global Ltd. Room No.1916,19Th Floor B-10, 1St Floor, Kanakia बिाम/ Air India Building Space, Western Edge Ii Vs. Nariman Point W.E.Highway, Boriwali(East) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 066 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-3575-R

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Leuva-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 68

…held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151) wherein it was held that the suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). In the above background, it could be seen that Ld. CIT(A) has trifurcated the investor entities into three categories- (i) entities not belonging to tainted group with respect of whom no incriminating material was found during search; (ii) entities belonging to tainted group where cash was exchanged in lieu of accommodation entries; (iii) entiti…

Sahakar Global Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 5127/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5125/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5126/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5127/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5128/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sahakar Global Ltd. Dcit-Cc-4(1) B-10, 1St Floor, Kanakia Space, Room No.1916,19Th Floor बिाम/ Western Edge Ii Air India Building Vs. W.E.Highway, Boriwali(East) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 066 Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-3575-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 5. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5340/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 6. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5968/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 7. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5341/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-Cc-4(1) Sahakar Global Ltd. Room No.1916,19Th Floor B-10, 1St Floor, Kanakia बिाम/ Air India Building Space, Western Edge Ii Vs. Nariman Point W.E.Highway, Boriwali(East) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 066 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-3575-R

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Leuva-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 68

…held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151) wherein it was held that the suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). In the above background, it could be seen that Ld. CIT(A) has trifurcated the investor entities into three categories- (i) entities not belonging to tainted group with respect of whom no incriminating material was found during search; (ii) entities belonging to tainted group where cash was exchanged in lieu of accommodation entries; (iii) entiti…

Sahakar Global Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 5126/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5125/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5126/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5127/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5128/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sahakar Global Ltd. Dcit-Cc-4(1) B-10, 1St Floor, Kanakia Space, Room No.1916,19Th Floor बिाम/ Western Edge Ii Air India Building Vs. W.E.Highway, Boriwali(East) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 066 Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-3575-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 5. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5340/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 6. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5968/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 7. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5341/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-Cc-4(1) Sahakar Global Ltd. Room No.1916,19Th Floor B-10, 1St Floor, Kanakia बिाम/ Air India Building Space, Western Edge Ii Vs. Nariman Point W.E.Highway, Boriwali(East) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 066 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-3575-R

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Leuva-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 68

…held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151) wherein it was held that the suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). In the above background, it could be seen that Ld. CIT(A) has trifurcated the investor entities into three categories- (i) entities not belonging to tainted group with respect of whom no incriminating material was found during search; (ii) entities belonging to tainted group where cash was exchanged in lieu of accommodation entries; (iii) entiti…